' V '- «£& a9^ ***** *> 







.5^ 




O, *0 * t * 4 <\ 







A <> -'TV* * «G ^t, - • » * 




r oV 




<>0« 






► » i • • 




£*£&>» y.-^feX £*£&>» / 





aV*^> ■• 

















Sr °k 











• • » • A ^ 




5K 



V* 


























0" .♦•^L'* < 





















W 



* <& >,. 



THE CONTRAST, 



OR THE 



BIBLE AND ABOLITIONISM: 



AN EXEGETICAL ARGUMENT, 



BY REV. WILLIAM (iRAHAHI, 

Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Oxford, Ohio. 



" The Prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream, and lie that hath my word let him 
speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord?"— Jer. xxv.-28. 



CINCINNATI : 

PRINTED AT THE DAILY CINCINNATI ATLAS OFFICE. 
Third Street, opposite Post Office, 

1844. 



iff i ( 



INTRODUCTORY 



Public opinion is now regarded as the great instrument of moral and 
■social reform. Its power in a Government like ours, cannot be questioned, 
'but we may doubt whether its use is beneficial to the community. The 
public opinion of modern times, is the opinion of a few, diffused, with great 
effort, through the multitude ; it is manufactured with reference to a specific 
result; and in most cases can hardly be distinguished from highly excited 
party feeling. This method of reform, with its varied means of agitation, 
has been introduced into the Church, and Christians have felt themselves 
constrained to employ it, almost to the rending of the Church. Where it is 
employed, ae a necessary consequence, the Scriptures are in a great measure 
neglected, and the power and purity of the Chureh arc impaired. The ob- 
ject of the following Essay is not alone to shew what the Scriptures teach 
respecting the relation of Master and Slave, in opposition to Abolitionism, 
but also to recal the attention of Christians to the only effective means of 
reform — the word of God. This is the lamp to our feet, and the light to 
our path; it is also our sword, and spear, and shield; our panoply of war. 
A departure from it injures ourselves and prevents our doing good to others. 

It may be proper to add — that the substance of this argument was a 
Speech ia the Synod of Cincinnati, (New School) at its late meeting. 



ARGUMENT 



The time, when the relation of master and slave, 
began to prevail in the world, is unknown. From the 
curse pronounced against Canaan, it seems to have 
been familiar to Noah ; and hence, many infer its ex- 
istence before the flood. Job alludes to the slave (in 
the Hebrew — eved) as belonging to a class, well known ; 
and by a nice, and appropriate distinction, discrimi- 
nates between him, and the hireling — (saickeer.) Job 
vii.-2-" As a servant, — eved, — earnestly desireth the 
shadow, and as a hireling looketh for the reward of 
his works. " The hireling, according to the custom, 
•(which was afterwards a law to the Jews — Deut. xxiv. 
14, 15,) is represented as earnestly desiring his wages; 
whilst the slave, receiving no wages, desired only the 
hour of rest." 

In the time of Abraham, and before the death of 
Shem, slavery prevailed in Egypt, Canaan and Arabia, 
and probably among all the nations of the earth. — 
From the history of the sale and purchase of Joseph ; 
the readiness with which the idea of selling him, was 
suggested to his brethren, on seeing the Ishmaelitish 
merchants; their prompt purchase; their carrying him 



6 

to Egypt, as to ;i well known market— the traffic in 
slaves was evidently well established prior to this 
transaction. Homer mentions Egypt as still the great 
market for slaves, in his age. 

Its probable origin. Notwithstanding the many as- 
sertions to the contrary, I would fain believe, that the 
relation of master and slave, originated in benevolence, 
rather than in cupidity, or in cruelty. The ancient 
law of nations, doomed to death all captives taken in 
war. Compassion may have suggested slavery as 
the milder alternative. Such unquestionably, was 
the motive in the Jewish Law. This positively pro- 
hibited making captives of the Canaanites, and, in 
Numbers xxxi. 17, forbade them to spare any of the 
Midianites, save female infants; and, in Deut, xx. 13, 
14, in all cases, required them to slay all the men 
taken in war, and spare only the women and children. 
The law presumed that the Jewish nation would not 
prosecute an unjust war; and by consequence, that 
those of their enemies, avIio had provoked the war, 
must be put to death; whilst the women and children, 
as less guilty, should be spared, and made slaves. — 
The Romans regarded it in the same light. Their 
writers say, that the word scrims — a slave, (and from 
which the word servant is formed,) means properly, 
a person whose life has been spared — clemency had 
l3een exercised towards him. Probably there are few 
even among ourselves, who, if placed in a condition 
similar to that of these captives, w^ould not praise the 
clemency that spared our lives, though it made us 
slaves. It is neither the part of justice nor of mercy, 
to exclaim against a price paid, regardless of the value 
received. Our laws Have decided that death is a 



greater evil, than the permanent privation of libertv, 
even connected with the solitary cell, and the hard 
labor of the Penitentiary. 

But the design of the present essay confines us to 
the history of this relation, in its connection with the 
Church. And, if Job lived before Abraham, he is the 
first recorded example, not only in the church, but in 
the world, of a master owning slaves. 

Job, i. 3. In the schedule of his property, are 
enumerated, seven thousand sheep, three thousand 
camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she- 
asses, and a very great household. The word here 
translated household, is more correctly translated, 
"servants," in Gen. xxvi. 14, — where, in the list of 
Isaac's property, we have " great store of servants. " 
Its primary meaning is servitude, bondage; and its 
secondary meaning, as in both these texts, is bond 
servants or slaves. Chap. xxxi. 13, he not only repre- 
sents himself as a master, but appeals to his conduct 
in that relation, as a proof of his uprightness. " If I 
did despise the cause of my man-servant, or of my 
maid-servant, when they contended with me. " Al- 
most the same sentence that represents Job as owning 
a great household, or store of servants, declared that 
" there was none like him in the earth, a perfect and 
an upright man, one that feared God, and eschewed 
evil. " 

Abraham. Although there is no valid objection to 

that interpretation of Gen. xii. 5, which makes " the 

souls gotten in Haran " to be slaves ; yet, to avoid a 

protracted criticism, that text is omitted. When he 

was in Egypt, Pharaoh, in restoring Sarah, gave him 
slaves. 



8 

Gen. xii. 16. "And he entreated him well for her 

sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and 

men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and 

camels." From Gen. xtv. 14, it is evident that he had 

a great number of servants. For in the war with the 

live kings, when he armed only those born and train- 
ed in his house, as the most trustworthy, there were 

three hundred and eighteen thus armed. 

In Gen. xvii. 12, where God establishes and seals the 
the covenant with him, as the father of the faithful, 
Abraham is recognized, not merely as owning slaves, 
but also as buying them. Every man child must 
needs be circumcised ; he that is born in the house, 
or bought with money, &c. It is added in v. 23, "And 
Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were 
born in his house, and all that were bought with his 
money, — every male, and circumcised them. " Some- 
time after this, Gen. xx. 14, "King Abimelech took sheep, 
and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and 
gave them to Abraham. " So that Eliezer in describ- 
ing to Laban the possessions of his master, might well 
say, Gen. xxiv. 35, — "And the Lord hath blessed my 
master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath 
given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and 
men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels, and 
asses. " 

Isaac. Of Isaac it is said, Gen. xxvi. 14. "He had 

possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and 
great store of servants. " Isaac had inherited all his 
father's property. 

Jacob. It is said of Jacob, Gen. xxx.-43, that "he 
increased greatly, and had much cattle, and maid-ser- 
vants, and men-servants, and camels, and asses." It 



is then abundantly evident, not only that all the 
patriarchs possessed men-servants, and maid-servants, 
but that they had a great number of them. 

Did they hold these servants as property 1 In his 
invaluable commentary on the laws of Moses, Michae- 
lis says, Article 123, "The purchase of slaves was so 
common, that the phrase, ' bought with money,' almost 
became the common term for a servant, particularly 
when he was to be distinguished from that superior 
class of servants, who were born in the family. " 

The intelligent reader of the passages quoted, espe- 
cially if he connect with them, ancient, uninspired 
history, relating to the same subject, without the aid 
of this eminent biblical critic, will be able easily to 
answer the question for himself. In every schedule 
of the possessions of the Patriachs, they constitute 
one item. They are represented as transferable. — 
Pharaoh and Abimelech gave them to Abraham, with 
sheep and oxen, and other property, without asking 
their consent. They were also purchasable— bought 
with money. They were devisable by will. Eleazer, 
after stating to Laban his masters great possessions, 
including men-servants, and maid-servants, says, Gen. 
24-35, "And Sarah my master's wife bore him a 
son, and unto him hath he given all that he hath, " 
not put him in possession, but made him his heir. — 
That which is transferable either by sale or gift, or de- 
vise, is certainly property. 

The duration of their servitude. This, in the Patri- 
archal times, seems to have been unlimited. In his 
eloquent description of the grave, Job represents it as 
the only place where the servant is free from his mas- 
ter. Job iii. 19. "The small and great are there, and 

the servant is free from his master. " When Hagar 
2 



10 

fled from her mistress, and the Lord met her, he said, 
Gen. xvi. 8, 9, "Hagar, Sarai's maid— whence earnest 
thou'? Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself 
under her hands. " Unwillingness to serve, and even 
flight, occasioned by severe treatment, did not termi- 
nate the servitude of the slave. A limited slavery 
was evidently unknown to the Patriarchs ; and, hence, 
when Moses contrasts the servitude of the Jew, with 
that of the bondman— eved— he says, Lev. xxv. 39, 40, 
" thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant. 
He shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee. '•' This 
was one point of difference. He refers to the eved, as 
a class well known. All the servants of the patriarchs 
were of this class. 

The authority of the master. The idea of property 
necessarily implies such a degree of control, as may 
secure the obedience of the servant. In requiring 
Abraham to circumcise his male slaves, God makes 
no reference to his giving them any previous instruc- 
tion, nor was he required to obtain their consent— 
Gen. xvii. 1 3, 23. It was enjoined upon him, as having 
authority to enforce submission. When Sarah com- 
plained of Hagar's conduct, Abraham said, Gen. xvi. 6. 
"Behold thy maid is in thy hands; do to her as it 
pleaseth," clearly shewing— that he regarded her as 
having authority to correct Hagar; a power which 
Sarah probably exercised with undue severity. \ et, 
when Hagar fled, because her mistress dealt hardly 
with her, the Lord sent her back, Gen. xvi. 9, and 
commanded her to submit herself to the hands of her 
mistress. Such was the relation of master and slave, 
in the families of the Patriarchs. The relation was 
not prohibited, its existence did not impeach their 
piety. Although Job had men-servants, and maid- 



11 

servants, a great household, yet of him, Job i. 8, the 
Lord said, " Hast thou considered my servant Job, 
that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and 
an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth 
evil. " Had this relation been in itself sinful, would 
God have said this 1 But Job was a good master ; he 
" did not despise the cause of his man-servant, or of 
his maid-servant. " 

The written covenant which made Abraham the 
parent of the promised seed, which constituted him 
the Father of the faithful, recognizes him as the owner 
of slaves, and was made with him as such ; it was 
sealed by the blood of his slaves, as well as by that of 
his son. If the relation were itself a sin, could the 
covenant have made such a recognition ; could such a 
seal have been applied ? And I cannot but express 
my astonishment that any, who profess to regard this 
covenant as the charter of the Christian Church, and 
which secures to us Gentiles our place, and privileges, 
and hopes as God's people, should venture so to modify 
either its form or spirit, as to exclude any man from 
its privileges, because he is a master, having slaAes 
born in his house, or bought with his money. The 
covenant does not require a man to be a master — but 
with such a modification, is it any longer either to him 
who adopts, or to him who rejects it, the covenant 
made with Abraham our father ? 

In the preceding analysis, we find no law controlling 
the relation of master and slave. It is permitted to 
exist, according to the established custom of the times. 
In the Jewish church, however, incorporated as a com- 
munity, whose divine constitution, and laws embraced 
their whole civil and religious polity, we reasonably 
anticipate a different course. Its universal, and long 



12 

continued practice ; its effect on the condition of the 
community, would direct the attention of the Legisla- 
tor to this relation. This reasonable anticipation is 
not disappointed. 

Before referring to the laws directly connected with 
this subject, I will advert to some previous laws, which 
recognize this relation, as a part of the civil polity of 
the Church. In the law instituting the Passover— the 
first and most memorable sacred feast of the church, 
and typical of the great paschal sacrifice, it is recogni- 
zed. Ex. xii. 43, 44, " And the Lord said unto Moses 
and Aaron, this is the Ordinance of the Passover: there 
shall no stranger eat thereof. But every man's (eved) 
servant, that is bought with money, when thou hast 
circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. " In the 
ten commandments, written for the world, it is also 
acknowledged. Ex. xx. 10, "But the seventh day is 
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not 
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor 
thy (eved) man-servant, nor thy (araa) maid-servant. " 
And in the 17 verse, " Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
bor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, 
nor his [eved] man-servant, nor his \_ama~] maid-servant" 
I have given the Hebrew words, translated, man-serv- 
ant, and maid-servant, because these are the appro- 
priate words to express male and female slave, in that 
language. From the recapitulation of the fourth 
commandment, it appears to have had an especial 
reference to the slave. Deut. v. 14, 15, after repeat- 
ing the law, it is added, " that thy man-servant, and 
thy maid-servant, may rest as well as thou. " The 
relation is also recognized in the laws for the Jew- 
ish Priesthood. Lev. xxii. 11. 'But if the priest 
bin/ any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and 



13 

he that is bom in his house, they shall eat of it. " 
We have now arrived at the period, when this rela- 
tion was the subject of express law. In Ex. xxi. 2, 7, 
and xxii. 3, it was enacted, that from various causes, a 
Jew might be reduced to a state of servitude. He 
might wax poor, and sell himself; he might be sold 
for debt, or for theft, when unable to make the legal 
restitution ; or, a parent might sell his child. But a 
male Hebrew could not be sold, to serve for more 
than six years. The law contained a provision, by 
which hem ight voluntarily relinquish his legal right 
to release, and then he became a servant forever. If 
the master of a Jewish servant had given him a slave 
as a wife, the law Ex. xxi. 4, decided, that the wife 
and children should remain the property of her mas- 
ter ; he was to go out by himself. But 5th verse, if 
the servant, from love to his master, and wife, and 
children, should plainly say, I will not go out free; 
then he might become a servant forever. Yet, as in 
the case of a wife's relinquishing the right of dower 
with us, this relinquishment of his right to liberty, 
must be made in the presence of the magistrates, and 
in a prescribed form. This provision seems to have 
been introduced, that the husband might not be forci- 
bly separated from his wife. These laws simply limit 
the duration of the service ; they say nothing of its 
mode. In Lev. xxv. the mode is defined, in contrast 
with the service of the bond slave — (eved.) Lev. xxv. 
39, * If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him 
to serve as an (eved,) a, bond servant; that is, neither in 
his service, nor in your estimation, shall he rank as an 
eved. In what respect shall he differ? Verse 40, "As an 
hired servant, (sawkecr.) and as a sojourner, shall he be 



14 

with thee," He was not to be regarded as a slave- 
property — but as a free man ; " And he shall serve thee 
to the year of Jubilee." He is not to be held as a pos- 
session, but a mere temporary usufruct. You own, 
not the man, but his services, for a limited period. He 
shall not be required to serve longer than six years ; 
and in all cases, when the Jubilee arrives, save where 
he has relinquished the privilege, he must go free, even 
should he have served only one year instead of six. 
Verse 42 ; " They shall not be sold as bond men." The 
literal translation of the passage is, " They shall not 
be sold after the manner of the sale of bond men." 
According to Jewish writers,* their slaves were sold 
by public outcry, and were, ordinarily, placed on a 
stone, fixed in the market, There was yet another 
difference. Verse 43 ; " Thou shalt not rule over him 
with rigor." Thou shalt not require from him, the 
menial offices, and rigid service, of the slave — cved. 
These limitations were evidently introduced, like that 
in Dent. xxv. 3, "lest thy brother be vile unto thee." 

This contrast presents a reflected description of the 
ered, the bond servant. His positive description is in 
verses 44, 45, 46 ; " Both thy bond men, and thy bond 
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen 
that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bond 
men and bond maids." " Moreover, of the children of 
the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall 
ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which 
they begat in your land, and they shall be your pos- 
session. And ye shall take them for your children after 
you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be 
your bond men forever ; but over your brethren, the 
children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another 

* Sec Dr. Gill's Commentary on this verso, 



15 

with rigor." Such is the legal definition of the eved, 
and the ama — bond man, and bond maid — among the 
Jews. Instead of being bound to render only a tem- 
porary service, and therefore as a hireling, he was a 
possession ; instead of belonging to his master for a term 
of years, he was an inheritance to him, and to his 
children after him, to inherit for a possession ; a bond 
man forever. It would be difficult to express a more 
absolute property title. It has been asserted that this 
title was vacated' by the Jubilee. A very slight exam- 
ination of the Jewish law, relating to property held by 
the title of " possession and inheritance ;" and of the 
influence of the Jubilee, on such property, will suffi- 
ciently refute this assertion. 

Gen. xvii. 8, is the original deed, conveying the land 
of Canaan to Abraham and his children. " I will give 
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, all the land of 
Canaan, for an everlasting possession." Here the title 
is " a 2*)ssession" and it is so styled in numerous pas- 
sages afterwards. See Lev. xiv. 34, and Deut, xxxii. 
49. In all these, it certainly means, an absolute, per- 
petual title. 

When Israel was about to pass through the land of 
the Edomites, God said, Deut. ii. 5, " Meddle not with 
them, for I will not give you of their land, no not so 
much as a foot breadth, because I have given Mount 
Seir unto Esau for a possession." When the land of 
Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes, each 
tribe held by the title of possession, and inheritance. 
See a law in relation to this, recorded in Num. xxxvi. 
6-9. When the territory of each tribe was divided 
among the families, each family held its part as a pos- 
session and inheritance ; and by this title, the law dis- 
tinguished this property, from any claim vacated by 



16 

the Jubilee. Lev. xxvii. 22-24; "If a man sanctify 
unto the Lord, any field which he hath bought, which 
is not of the fields of his possession" etc. Here the 
purchased field, to which he had and could have only 
lease-hold title, is distinguished from the fields held 
from the tribe, by the title of a possession. It is added, 
"In the year of Jubilee, it shall return to him of whom 
it was bought, to whom the possession of the land did 
belong." This was not a title which the Jubilee dis- 
turbed. Where it affected it at all, it restored and 
confirmed it ; and when the law defined the eved, as a 
possession, and an inheritance, it expressed a title, which 
the Jubilee neither did nor could disturb. Besides, 
one of the points of difference between the Jewish ser- 
vant, and the eved, bond servant, is, that whilst the 
former shall go out at the Jubilee, the latter " shall be 
a bondman forever" In addition to all this, the Jubi- 
lee affected only the inJiabitants of the land — the citi- 
zens. 

The law also permitted the Jews to reserve for slaves 
a part of the captives taken in war. Deut. xx. When 
they made war against a city, without the borders of 
Palestine, they were first to proffer peace ; if the prof- 
fer was accepted, the city was to be tributary ; but, 
if not, they Avere to fight against it. And, verses 13th 
and 14th — 'When the Lord, thy God hath delivered it 
into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof 
with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the 
little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, 
even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself." 
In Num. xxxi. is related an instance where the Jews 
acted in accordance with this law. In that case, as in 
18th verse, only the female children were preserved. — 
And of these, a tithe was given to the Levites, and a 



17 

part to the High Priest; Eleazar — see verses 40, 41 and 
47. There were then three sources from which the 
Jew might obtain bond-servants. They might be 
bought with money from the heathen, or the stranger 
born in his house, or taken in war. 

The Jews also had slaves belonging to the temple, 
and congregation. The Gibeonites were of this class. 
Josh. ix. 23; "There shall none of you be freed from 
being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of 
water for the house of my God.*' In Lev. xxvii. 1 — 8, 
there is a law, respecting Jews, who should consecrate 
themselves, as servants to the sanctuary, and also, their 
estimated value, at different ages, and of each sex. — 
Persons thus consecrated, were slaves for life, and could 
only be released by paying the price, at which they 
were valued. Thus the temple had its servants of 
both classes — the Gibeonite, who was properly an ered } 
he and his children were perpetual slaves ; and the 
self-consecrated Jew, whose children were not involved 
in his servitude. 

The rank of the eved according to Jeicisli law. He 
was considered as property. The law defines him a 
possession, and an inheritance. In Ex. xxi. 21, the law 
calls him " money."' After saying, if a master smote a 
servant, and he died under his hand, he should be pun- 
ished, it adds, " Notwithstanding, if he continue a day 
or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his money." 
This applies only to the eved ; for the law required the 
master to treat the Jewish servant, as an hireling; of 
course he was not permitted to chastise him. This 
same designation seems to be expressed also in the 
thirty-second verse of this chapter. After stating, that 
if an ox was wont to push with his horn, and his owner 
knew it, and had not kept him confined, and he had 



18 

killed a man or a woman, the owner should be ad- 
judged a murderer, and, either be put to death, or pay 
a fine for the ransom of his life, it adds, " If the ox 
shall push a man servant, or maid servant, the owner 
shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and, 
(as in the other case,) the ox shall be stoned." Here 
the owner was not treated as a murderer ; he paid the 
value of the slave, and the ox was killed. Where a 
master chastised his slave, and he died under his hand, 
in verse 20 of this same chapter, it is said "he shall 
surely be punished," but not as in the laws of capital 
offences, "he shall surely be put to death." In a word, 
the slave was not recognized in law, as a man, or wo- 
man, but as property. 

The Authority of the Master. He had authority to 
correct his slaves. The law punished him as a male- 
factor, only when the slave died under his hand. If in 
chastising a slave, he maimed him, Ex. xxi. 26-27, the 
slave was made free. But the law fully recognized his 
authority to chastise. Solomon says, Prov. xxix. 19 — - 
" A servant will not be corrected by words." As the 
character of the nation degenerated, their slaves would 
doubtless be more insubordinate; and seem to require 
more severe discipline. From the book of Ecclesiasti- 
cus, it is evident that about the time of the Maccabees, 
the Jews had learned to imitate their heathen neigh- 
bors, in cruelty to the slave, as well as in other vices. — 
See Ecc. xxxiii. 24-28. 

The master had power also to reclaim his fugitive 
slave. From 1 Kings, ii. 39, 40, it is evident, that the 
Jews, who told Shimei where his fugitive slaves were, 
as well as Shimei himself, believed that their law au- 
thorized the pursuit and recapture of such fugitives.— 
The law relating to fugitive slaves Deut, xxiii. 15-16 — 



19 

u Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant 
which is escaped from his master unto thee : he shall 
dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which 
he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him 
best," — evidently refers to fugitives from heathen mas- 
ters. This is its construction by Michaelis, Jahn, and 
by all the commentators I have seen. To apply it to 
slaves owned by Jews, would not only conflict with the 
text itself, but involve the whole law in the absurdity 
of granting an absolute property in the eved, by one act, 
and abrogating it by another. 

The master was permitted to sell his slave. This is not 
only involved in his being a possession and inheritance, 
but is clearly asserted in the law, which forbids selling 
"the Jewish servant, as the cved is sold." They could 
sell each class, though not in the same manner. The 
only exception to the privilege of selling, is in Deut. 
xxi. 10-14. — If her master espouse a female captive 
taken in war, "and it shall be, if thou have no delight 
in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will : but 
thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not 
make merchandize of her, because thou hast humbled 
her. " 

The probable number of their slaves. From the pecu- 
liarity of their laws and institutions, it is not probable, 
that at any period the Jews possessed a great number 
of slaves ; though the number to be held either by indi- 
viduals or the nation, was not limited. From Prov. xii. 
9. — "He that is despised, and hath a servant, is better 
than he that honoreth himself and lacketh bread. " It 
seems the Jews considered it commendable to own 
slaves. This would tend to make the possession of 
them general. The High Priest and Levites owned 
slaves ; the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 12, had a slave; 



3D 

and the father of Saul, "the least family, of the small- 
est tribe of Israel," owned several. 

Their legal jmvileges. The law protected the life of 
the slave from the cruelty of his master ; not only by 
punishing him, if the slave died under his hand, but by 
granting freedom to the slave, if maimed by him. The 
exception in Ex. xxi. 21, is based on the legal presump- 
tion, that the death of the slave was the effect of casual- 
ty, rather than the intention of the master.. The slave 
was also entitled to the rest of the Sabbath ; to a par- 
ticipation in the three annual festivals ; — and if his mas- 
ter were a farmer, to the rest of the seventh year. — 
Besides these legal rights and privileges, the laws form- 
ing the moral character of the master, w T ere also for the 
benefit of the slave. 

Do the Scriptures, requiring the Jews, to " open their 
moutJi for the dumb, " to u break every yoke, " and, those 
of similar purport, intend to condemn or abolish the lair 
relating to slavery? Under ordinary circumstances this 
question would mot deserve a moment's notice. No 
prophet could either condemn the law, or those whose 
practice conformed to it. A reference to most of these 
passages will shew that they had no relation to the 
subject of slavery. The command Isaiah lviii. 6, "to 
loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy bur- 
dens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every 
yoke," explains itself. Bands of wickedness, or wicked 
bands, are bands contrary to the law. This is true, 
also of "heavy burdens, oppression, and the yoke." 
These were violations of the law. Jeremiah explains 
these wicked bands and yokes. Jeremiah xxxiv. 8-16. 
It was holding Jewish servants longer than the time 
prescribed by law, — making an ercd of the Jew. 

Such was the relation of master and slave, accord- 



m 

ing to the Jewish law. The relation, as well as the 
law continued to the time of our Savior. In his excel- 
lent commentary on the Gospel of John, Prof. Tholuck. 
says, John xviii. 18, "the servants (douloi) are the 
domestic slaves of Caiaphas the high priest." The 
maid, also, to whom Peter denied his Lord, was a slave. 
This law as has been shewn, denned the slave to be a 
perpetual property, and as such, gave the master 
authority to compel his service by necessary correction ; 
to recapture him if he lied, and to dispose of him by 
gift, or devise, or sale, as other property. It need 
scarcely be added that the slave could be attached and 
sold for debt by the master's creditor. Even the debt- 
or's children could be sold. See 2 Kings iv. 1. 

The slaves were either bought with money from the 
heathen, and the stranger, or captives in war, or which 
was the most prized and trusted class, the children of 
slaves, those "bom in the house." David makes a 
beautiful allusion to the intimacy of the latter relation 
between master and slave. Psalms Ixxxvi. 16 — "give 
thy strength unto thy servant, and save the son of thy 
handmaid." Cxvi. 16 — "O Lord, truly I am thy ser- 
vant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid ;" 
thy eved, the son of thine Ama ; not an eved bought 
with money, but an eved born in the house. Does 
infant baptism involve this same principle] 

The question, whether the relation of master and slave, 
be in itself sinful, has now been abundantly answered; 
at least to all who believe the Bible, and accord to its 
author the privilege of explaining his own law. It can 
not be an offence against God; for it is acknowledged 
as a lawful relation in the first table of the decalogue, 
which comprises all the duties we owe to God : neither 
is it necessarily an offence against man, for in the second 



22 

fable, comprising all the duties we owe to man it is also 
recognized. We cannot suppose that in laws for the 
Jews, nor for the world, God could introduce or coun- 
tenance, what is in itself sinful. 

It remains for us to examine the NeAV Testament 
and learn whether it forbids this relation among 
Christians. 

In establishing the Christian Church our Savior and 
his Apostles taught that they did not found a Church 
essentially new. Christ came to break down the middle 
Avail of partition, that " the blessing of Abraham might 
come upon the Gentiles." The covenant, and the law, 
and the promises, were made the common property of 
the worlA. From this identity of the two churches, it 
necessarily follows, that the institutions and ordinances 
of the Jews belong also to the Christian Church ; un- 
less they have been expressly altered or abrogated. 
This inference is so obvious and legitimate ; was so ful- 
ly admitted by the Apostles, and is so essentially in- 
volved in all that belongs to Christianity, that I shall 
not attempt to prove it by argument. * 

Is it not a reasonable supposition that the ancient 
christians would regard the law which authorized the 
relation of master and slave in the Jewish church, as 
also authorizing it among christians. I cannot imagine 
how they could form a contrary opinion. It was a part 
of the laws of Jehovah. The Savior, and Prophets, and 
Apostles had declared the whole system to be perfect, 
holy, just and good. How could they, if they had the 
spirit of Christ and his Apostles dwelling in them, con- 
demn it as unholy, or on their own responsibility, place 
it among the repealed ordinances. It is frequently as- 

* If the reader desires such proof he will find it in the very able treatise on 
infant Haptism, hy the Rov. Dr. Woods of the Theological Seminary, Andovcr. 



2:5 

serted, that, although this relation is not forbidden in 
words, yet the whole spirit of the gospel condemns it. 
We must, in charity, hope, that not a few, who make 
this assertion, are utterly unsuspicious of its bearing 
upon the law, and its author. The moral purity of the 
law is the moral purity of the Gospel, and both are the 
purity of God himself. 

But the New Testament best explains its own spirit. 
Does it recognize the relation of master and slave, 
among the the relations authorized in the Christian 
Church]. 

The first answer to this question is, the history of 
the Centurion at Capernaum. Luke vii. 2, "And a 
certain Centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, 
was sick." The word, here translated servant, is doulos. 
The meaning, among the Greeks, was the same with 
eved among the Hebrews, a slave. In all its compounds 
and formations, (and they are some twenty or thirty) 
it retains this essential meaning ; so that there is no 
word in any language whose meaning is more accurate- 
ly fixed. It would seem scarcely possible to question, 
whether the Apostles use it in its proper sense. When 
it was necessary for them to express an idea, unknown 
to the Greeks, or one peculiar to the Hebrews, they, as 
our Missionaries now do, would either form a new word, 
in accordance with the idiom of the language, or use a 
familiar word in a modified sense. But every principle 
of common sense, and every law of speech, would 
require that, in expressing an idea common to both 
languages, they should use the word appropriated to 
that idea in the language in which they spoke or wrote. 
The slave was familiar to both Greek and Hebrew. — 
The Greeks also had their appropriate word for hire- 
ling — misthios. Yet it has been denied that the Apos- 



ties used doulos, in iis appropriate sense. Willi what 
foundation, such denial is made, a very slight examina- 
tion will show. When the Apostles present the con- 
trast between freeman, eleul/tcros, and its opposite, dou- 
los is invariably used. 

Rom. vi. 20 — "For when ye were (douloi) the serv- 
ants of sin, ye were (ehutheroi) free from righteous- 
ness. " 

1 Cor. vii. 21 — "Art thou called, being (doulos) a ser- 
vant," — "but if thou mayest be made (eleutheros) free." 

Verse 22 — " For he that is called in the Lord, being 
(doulos) a servant, is the Lord's (apeleutheros) freed 
man. P. 

Gal. iii. 28 — " There is neither (doulos) bond nor 
[eleuthcros] free. " 

Coloss. iii. 11 — "Where there is neither \_doulos~] 
bond, nor [eleutheros'] free. " 

See also Eph. vi. 8— Rev. vi. 15 and xiii. 16, and 
xix. 18. 

In a conversation with the Jews, John viii. 30, 40, our 
Saviour said, " The truth shall make you free" [using 
the verb formed from eleutheros.] The Jews at once 
replied, " We be Abraham's seed, and were never in 
bondage, [ literally, never rendered the service of 
slaves] to any man. How then sayest thou ye shall be 
made free. " They at once seized the contrast. How 
can we be made elcutheroi if we were never douloi? — 
The Saviour replied, "Whosoever committeth sin, is 
[doulos] the slave of sin. " 

These examples make the meaning of doulos in the 
New Testament, sufficiently plain. It is used as eved 
was used in the Jewish Church, to express the servi- 
tude of the Christian to his heavenly master. A dou- 
los of God, is one who is not his own master; who lias 



'>.-» 



been bought with a price. He, his family, his proper- 
ty, his time, his body and his spirit, belong to God; and 
he lives, and labors not for himself, but for him, whose 
property he is. It is true, that no one is, in this sense, 
the doulos of God, but he, who has voluntarily chosen 
him as his master. 

Doulos is used, not to express the mode in which this 
relation was constituted: but the nature of the relation 
itself. The angels, who remain as they were created, 
are thedoidoi of God, as really as penitent men. 

The Greeks had other words, expressing some modi- 
fication of the general idea of slavery, as house-slave, 
footman, &c. They also used the word pais (boy) as 
the word boy is now frequently used in Slave-holding 
States. But the genuine idea of slave, both in classic 
Greek, and in the New Testament, is expressed by 
doulos. 

This Centurion, of whom our Saviour said, "I have 
not found so great faith, not in all Israel, " was then a 
master. Cornelius, "a devout man, who feared God, 
with all his house/' was also a master. Acts x. 7, "and 
when the angel was departed, he called two of his 
household servants." The word here used, is oiketes — 
a house-slave. The same word is used, Luke xvi. 18, 
"No servant can serve two masters." 

Acts xii. 12, 13 — When Peter knocked at the gate of 
Mary, the Mother of John, Mark, "a damsel came to 
hearken, whose name was Rhoda." 

The word here translated damsel, is pardiske, a fe- 
male slave. It is used in the Septuagint, as the trans- 
lation of ama, a bond-woman. It is used in Gal. iv. 
22, 30, 31, and is there translated bond- woman. It is 
the word used in Acts xvi. 16-A certain dmnsel brought 

her master much gain — Also in Luke xii. 45, "And 
4 



§6 

shall begin to beat the men-servants, and maidens" maid- 
servants. All the Evangelists used it to designate the 
maid to whom Peter denied his master. These are the 
only places in which this word is used in the New 
Testament; and from these, we cannot question the 
rank of this Rhoda. Rosenmuller and Kuinoel in John 
xviii. 17 — "Then saith the damsel \_pardiske~] that kept 
the door," say — "Whilst the heathen made their male- 
slaves, porters, the Jews not unfrequently devolved 
this duty on their female slaves. Such was the office of 
this maid-servant of the high priest, and of Rhoda, the 
maid-servant of Mary." Besides those instances of its 
actual existence in the Church, the use which our Sa- 
viour made of this relation, in the parables, and illus- 
trations of truth and duty, is inconsistent with the be- 
lief that he considered it sinful. I will refer to a single 
parable — Luke xv. The father of the prodigal son, 
is represented as having (mlstJtioi) hired servants, and 
also \_douloi] slaves. The command, to bring the best 
robe, and the ring, and the shoes, was addressed to the 
[doulous] slaves. The son, "when he came to himself," 
contrasts his situation, with that of his father's [«jw- 
thioi] hired servants ; and humbled, and penitent, he- 
asks to be made, not as his father's slave, but as a hire- 
ling. Was not the situation of a hireling, in that age, 
and in such a family, inferior to that of a slave? The 
self-condemned son chose the lowest place in his father's 
house, a-s best harmonizing with his sense of ill-desert. 
The father is presented as a model of benevolence, an 
eminent illustration of the benevolence and compassion 
of God towards penitent sinners. In the parable, we 
see the penitent son— the father weeping with joy em- 
bracing him, and the family slaves rejoicing with their 
master. Ts the grouping unnatural? does it violate the 



27 

principles of moral right? Certainly had our Saviour 
regarded the relation of master and slave as sinful, it 
would not have been introduced here. All these in- 
stances were probably connected with the Jewish law, 
and could plead Divine authority. We may still ask, 
how the founders of the Christian Church treat this 
relation, as it existed among the Gentiles, and without 
God's expressed permission. 

The relation of master and slave among the heathen, 
can be traced to the time of the patriarchs. Probably 
Job, and Abraham, and Abimelech, and Pharoah, how- 
ever they differed in the treatment of their slaves, held 
them by the same tenure. 

The legal rank of the Roman slave may be regarded 
as essentially his rank throughout the heathen world. 
The Romans, like the Jews, permitted their own citi- 
zens to be sold into servitude for debt, or crime, or by 
their parents. Like them they regarded such servants 
rather as hirelings, than as slaves, for when their servi- 
tude terminated, they regained their rank as citizens. 
The law forbade the stealing and selling a Roman citi- 
zen. The law, or rather the spirit of this law, seems 
to have existed as early, and extensively as the practice 
of slavery. Rachel and J^eah say of their father, Gen. 
xxxi, 14-15. "Are we not counted of him as stran- 
gers? For he hath sold us and hath quite devoured 
also our money." Shewing that only strangers were 
thus sold. The Roman slave was either taken in war, 
" bought with money," or ' ; born in the house." Justi- 
nian's Institutes, 1. 3, 3 — " Slaves are denominated 
serri, from the practice of our generals to sell their 
captives, and thus preserve (servare) and not slay them." 

An incident in the later history of the Jews will 
shew the influence which this practice of selling their 



28 

captives had on heathen warfare. Antiochus Epipha- 
nes was required to pay to the Romans a tribute of two 
thousand talents. Nicaner, his general, proposed to 
raise this sum from the sale of the Jews he should cap- 
ture in a war against that cople. He then sent to the 
cities and the sea coast, proclaiming a sale of these 
captives, and collected a large number of slave mer- 
chants who accompanied his army, prepared to purchase 
the Jews, when set up to public vendue in the camp. 
M: Mace, viii, 10, 1L 

There was a constant slave market at Rome. 

" Slaves were held pro nullis, [as nobody;] pro 
moxtuis, [as dead men ;] per quadrupedibus;." nay, were 
in a much worse state than any cattle whatsoever. 
They had no head in the state, no name, title, or regis- 
ter; tliey were not capable of being injured, nor could 
they take by purchase or descent ; they had no heirs, 
and could therefore make no will, exclusive of what 
was called their "peculium ;" whatever they acquired 
was their master's ; they could not plead nor be pleaded 
for ; they were not entitled to the rights and considera- 
tions of matrimony, and therefore had no relief in case 
of adultery ; nor were they proper objects of cognation 
and affinity ; they could be sold, transferred or pawned, 
as goods; for goods they were and as such they were 
esteemed ; they might be tortured for evidence ; pun- 
ished at the discretion of their master, or even put to 
death by his authority ; together with many other civil 
incapacities which I have not room to enumerate. Coo- 
per's Justinian, note, pp. 411. 

In Justinian's Institutes, 1, 8, 1, 22, we find it as- 
serted even so late as A. D. 533. — " All slaves are in 
the power of their masters, a power derived from the 
law of nations; for it is observable among all nations 



29 

that masters have always had the power of life and 
death over their slaves." The next section limits this 
right among the Romans. " All our subjects are now 
forbidden to inflict any extraordinary punishment upon 
their slaves, without legal cause. " Some of the Roman 
citizens held 20,000 slaves. 

Such was the slavery which the Apostles every where 
encountered, so soon as they passed the bounds of Judea. 
Churches among the heathen were to be formed of mas- 
ters owning slaves, and of slaves serving masters under 
such laws. How then did they treat this relation? — 
The answer to this question may be found in their Episr- 
tles to these churches. They treated it as they treated 
the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, 
equally perverted by these heathen. They corrected 
its abuses, but did not forbid the relation. Both slaves 
and masters were received into the church, the rela- 
tion was recognized, and the duties of the master and 
slave were enjoined. The Apostles addressed slaves 
as members of the church, and prescribed their duties 
as slaves. 

1 Cor. vii. 21 — "Art thou called being (doulos) a ser- 
vant? care not for it." 

Eph. vi. 5, 6 — "Ye servants {douloi) be obedient to 
your own masters according to the flesh :" not with eye 
service — but as the servants of Christ, doing the will 
of God." 

Coloss. iii. 22 — "Servants {douloi) obey in all things 
your masters according to the flesh ; not with eye ser- 
vice as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing 
God." 

1 Tim. vi. 5, 6 — "Let as many servants (douloi) as 
are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of 
all honor, that the name of God, and his doctrine be 
not blasphemed." 



30 

Titus, ii. 9, 10 — "Exhort servants (doulous) to be 
obedient to their own masters, and to please them well 
in all things, not answering again, not purloining, but 
shewing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doc- 
trine of God our Saviour in all things." 

1 Peter, ii. 18 — "Servants be subject to your own 
masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, 
but also to the froward." The word translated serv- 
ants, in this passage, is oiketes, properly a house-slave ; 
but evidently here used as doulos. These quotations 
sufficiently show, that slaves were members of the Apos- 
tolic Churches, and that God enjoined the faithful per- 
formance of their duties to their masters. 

It is not sin, to be a slave ; but dishonesty, unfaith- 
fulness, disobedience to lawful authority, is always sin- 
ful, whether in a slave or freeman. 

There were also masters in the church, and their 
duties to their slaves were prescribed. Eph. vi. 9-" And 
ye masters do the same things to them, (the slaves) for- 
bearing threatening, knowing that your master is in 
heaven." 

Coloss. iv. 1 — "Masters, give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a 
master in heaven." The word translated master, in 
these verses, ischurias, whose primary meaning implies 
authority, rather than ownership. Hence some have 
inferred that in the New Testament kurios does not 
mean the owner of a slave, properly designated by des- 
potes. Schleusner (in his Lex. in Nov. Test.) on the 
word kurios, says : "The distinction which some have 
made between kurios and despotes, is {nihill) nothing, as 
examples even in classic Greek plainly teached." It 
may be added that, if possible, this distinction is still 
less, in the Greek of the Scriptures. Kurios is the pro- 



31 

per translation of the Hebrew word adonai master — 
and is generally used for it in the Septuagint. Gen. 
xxxix. 2 — "Joseph was in the house of his master," 
(kurios.) "And his master," (kurios.) Besides the ku- 
rios Of a slave, is necessarily, his master. 

1 Tim. vi. 2 — "And they that have believing masters, 
let them not despise them because they are brethren, 
but rather do them service, because they are faithful, 
and beloved, partakers of the benefit." Here the word 
translated masters, is despoles, whose appropriate signifi- 
cation is, " the owner of a slave. " Yet it has been 
asserted that these men were not masters, but were 
only so called, because they had once sustained that 
relation, as Gen. Washington retained his title, long 
after he had resigned the commission that conferred the 
authority. But the assertion is most obviously unfounded 
The command is addressed to "as many (doidoi) servants 
as are under the yoke. 1 '' How could these douloi be un- 
der the yoke, if these masters had lost their authority"? 
Besides, in the jjhrase, "but rather do them service,'" 
the Apostle uses the word, douliou, which as Schleus- 
ner shews, means "the .service of those who are under 
the dominion, and in the possession of another whether 
bought with money or taken in war, or born in the 
house," the service of slave. The passage then asserts, 
unequivocally, that these despotes were then masters, 
and beloved brethren in the Church. 

The epistle to Philemon sustains this position. One- 
simus, Philemon's fugitive slave, had gone to Rome. 
Whilst there, he attended the ministry of Paul and 
was converted. The apostle sent him back to his mas- 
ter, and in this epistle, earnestly entreats Philemon to 
receive and pardon Onesimus, who had become a be- 
loved brother. The epistle is a model of affectionate 



?>2 

and eloquent intercession, yet it acknowledges Phile- 
mon's claim to the services of Onesimus. u Whom I 
would have retained with me, that in thy stead he 
might have ministered to me in the bonds of the gospel ; 
(in chains for the gospel.) But without thy mind, I 
would do nothing." Though Paul, in chains, greatly 
needed .some one to minister to him, and found Onesi- 
mus peculiarly qualified for this service, yet he would 
not interfere with the legal rights of Philemon, and 
detain him without his master's consent. This epistle, 
in the name of Paul and Timothy, is inscribed to "Phile- 
mon, our dearly beloved" and fellow laborer. It there- 
fore proves, as do the other epistles, quoted for this 
purpose, that the apostles did not regard the relation of 
master and slave as inconsistent with a cx*edible profes- 
sion of Christianity. 

They prove also, that where this relation existed 
among the Gentiles, the apostles did not forbid its con- 
tinuance. They treated it as they treated the relations 
of husband and wife, of parent and child, among the 
same Gentiles. They modified, purified, and made 
them the source of great domestic, and .social, and spi- 
ritual blessings. In the same paragraph that prescribes 
the duties of husbands and wives, of parents and chil- 
dren, the duties of masters and slaves are prescribed. 
The same code that authorises the one relation, recog- 
nizes the other. The same epistles that are inscribed 
to husbands and wives, parents and children as holy, 
beloved, and faithful brethren, are by the same inscrip- 
tion, addressed to masters and slaves. Is there then, 
more reason to doubt wheth er this relation be authori- 
zed in the Christian Church, than whether it was au- 
thorized in the Jewish Church'? 

It may be added that the practice of slavery con- 



33 

tinued in the Church, from the time of the Apostles, 
nearly to the time of Luther. In the 14th century a 
law was passed abolishing slavery in France, but it was 
generally disregarded. And so late as 1574, there was 
a commission from Elizabeth of England, respecting 
the manumission of two of her bondmen.* The cha- 
racter of slavery in the Roman Empire, may be learned 
from Justinian's Institutes, published A. D. 533, when 
the government had been at least, nominally Christian, 
for almost two centuries. Its earlier history is less 
offensive. Ignatius, who was contemporary with the 
Apostles, suffered martyrdom, A. D. 107. On his way 
to execution, he thus writes to Polycarp : — "Despise 
not slaves of either sex : yet let them not be puffed up, 
but serve more faithfully, to the glory of God, that they 
may obtain a better liberty from God : let them not de- 
sire to be set at liberty, at the charge of the Church, 
lest they be found slaves of lust." — Milner's Ch. Hist. 
vol. 1. p. 152. 

Polycarp suffered martyrdom, A. D. 167. He also 
was a companion of the Apostles. Whilst the perse- 
cution was raging, he was induced, by his friends, to 
retire to a neighboring village. The civil officers, not 
finding him at his house, seized two of his servants, 
and by torturing one of them, compelled him to disclose 
the place of his master's retreat. The same persecu- 
tion in which Polycarp suffered, visited the churches of 
Vienne and Lyons. In a letter, giving an account of 
their sufferings, they say, these were greatly aggravated 
" by the conduct of their heathen servants. Some of 
these servants had been apprehended, and they accused 
the Christians of eating human flesh, and of various 
unnatural crimes, not fit to be mentioned or imagined." 

* Robertson's Charles V. vol. 1 — notes IX. XX.— where the reader will find 
many hints on the slavery of the Middle Ages. 

5 



This same letter gives an account of a female slave, 
and her mistress who suffered martyrdom together. — 
Milner's Ch. Hist. vol. 1, p. 188. Some time after this, 
we have an account of the martyrdom of Pamphilius, a 
Presbyter, and that of his servant. They also suffered 
together. 

I will present another fact connected with this sub- 
ject, though of later date. It is selected, partly because 
of its national relation ; and in part, because it suggests 
a proper course of conduct towards Africa. 

" That Gregory, who was afterwards raised to the 
Popedom, and is distinguished by the appellation of 
' the Great, ' was one day led into the market-place at 
Rome, to look at a large importation of foreign mer- 
chandize. Among the articles there, were some boys 
exposed for sale. There was nothing remarkable in 
this, for it was the custom every where in that age, and 
had been so from time immemorial ; but he was struck 
by the appearance of the boys, their clear skin, their 
flaxen hair, and ingeneous countenances." On enquir- 
ing, he learned that they were English, from the Is- 
land of Britain; and were heathen. He immediately 
resolved to visit Britain, that he might convert the Eng- 
lish, but was prevented, by his election to the Papacy. 
After his election, he sent forty Missionaries to England, 
and an agent into France to purchase young Anglo- 
Saxon slaves, and place them in Monasteries, where 
they might be carefully educated, and prepared to as- 
sist in converting their countrymen. — Southey's Book 
of the Church, vol. 1, p. 23. 

We have now completed this biblical investigation. 
We have shewed that the relation of master and slave, 
existed in the Patriarchal Church : was recognized in 
the Abrahamic Covenant : was incorporated with the 



35 

entire Civil and Ecclesiastical polity of the Jews : ex- 
isted in the families of persons whom our Saviour and 
his Apostles represented and treated as eminently 
pious : and that in the churches formed by the Apostles, 
it was the subject of advice and legislation, like the 
other social and domestic relations. It has also been 
shewn, that it continued in the church till near the 
time of the Reformation. 

It will not require a labored exposition of the princi- 
ples and practical effect of modern Abolitionism, to 
make the contrast, between it and the Bible, manifest. 
In shewing this contrast, I do not impeach the intelli- 
gence or moral principle of Abolitionists, but allow 
them due credit for both. 

Abolitionism assumes that the relation of master 
and slave is a sin — a palpable violation of duty to God 
and man. Its object is to banish this relation from the 
church and country. 

The effect of this principle, upon Abolitionists, in their 
connection icith the Church, They can have no chris- 
tian fellowship with those who sustain the relation of 
master, because in their opinion, such live in the prac- 
tice of a scandalous sin. They establish a term of 
communion, unknown to the Church, since "the begin- 
ning." One which would exclude Prophet and Apos- 
tle, and Martyr, and which alike condemns the laws 
and Lawgiver of the Church. 

They demand that ecclesiastical courts shall condemn 
as a sin, what the head of the Church has authorized, 
not only in the charter, but in all the laws that he has 
ever given for the government of the church. They 
regard the ministers of Christ, who differ from them 
on this subject, as unfaithful to their trust, and unwor- 
thy of the support or confidence of the Church. 



36 

The effect on their conduct as citizens. Abolitionists 
are opposed to the laws, and the government, on the 
ground of moral principle. They demand a change of 
the laws, and of the bond of union between the States, 
and avail themselves of all their political rights, that 
they may effect this change. They use the "liberty of 
speech and of the press," in its utmost latitude, and as- 
sailing the characters of ministers, of churches, of civil 
rulers, and legislators, that they may create and direct a 
strong public sentiment in favor of this object. They 
claim, that in thus using the press and speech, they 
violate no duty of the citizen, because, if convicted of 
slander or a libel, they are prepared to submit to the 
penalty. But then, neither does he who resorts to the 
club and stone, to avenge these aspersions, violate any 
duty of the citizen ; for the law also grants him liberty 
of person and limb, and he uses this liberty as he 
thinks proper, subject to the penalty of their abuse ! — 
A principle which makes submission to the penalty, 
equivalent to obedience to the law, and subverts all 
government. It would make the inmates of the State's 
Prison, to be law-abiding citizens, and even Satan him- 
self is thus converted into a dutiful subject of the 
divine government. They assume the power to declare 
civil laws null and void, and absolve officers from the 
oath, binding them to support the Constitution. They 
apply to foreign pow T ers, and invite their co-operation. 
In the "World's Convention" met at London, 1840, — 
the American delegates offered and advocated resolu- 
tions, to enlist the aid of the foreign press, that the in- 
dignation of the world might be excited against this 
Slaveholding Republic. They stated that the " Amer- 
ican Abolitionists fell back for assistance on the civili- 
zed world : that they relied on external application ; ' 



B 



and that "the civilized world must erect a wall of ex- 
terminating fire around American Slavery which should 
melt the hard hearts of American Slaveholders;" "that 
they relied on moral power, and by moral power — 

meant political action."* 

Now according to human laws, this was not treason. 
But does not the conduct of these delegates, toward 
their own country, bear a very marked resemblance to 
that of the celebrated Peter the Hermit — toward the 
Turks? They were preaching up a crusade, and would 
arouse the press, and the indignation, and political ac- 
tion of the world against their own country, — that by 
these means the government may be compelled to 
adopt the principle of Abolitionists. 

It is easy to perceive the contrast between all this 
and the principles and practice of early Christians. — 
Tertullian exhibits a beautiful view of the conduct of 
Christians toward the civil government, in the Third 
Century. In his apology for Christians, he says : "We 
looking up to heaven with outstretched hands, because 
they are harmless, with naked hands, because we 
are not ashamed, without a prompter, because we 
pray from the heart, constantly pray for the Emperors, 
that they may have a long life, a secure empire, a safe 
palace, strong armies, a faithful senate, a well morali- 
zed people, a quiet state of the world — whatever Cresar 
would wish for himself in his public and private capa- 
city." And, after significantly hinting at the number 
of the Christians, and their power to defend themselves, 
he adds : "We are dead to all ideas of worldly honor 
and dignity, nothing is more foreign to us than political 
concerns" This apology was addressed to the perse- 
cuting Roman Emperors. But even in the days of the 

* See Report of World's Convention in the Philanthropist, 1840, Nos. 19 and 
22, of 5th vol. 



38 

Apostles, some men crept into the Church, actuated by 
a very different spirit. These were of that class of the 
Jews, who believed submission to the Roman Govern- 
ment to be a sin. They reviled the Emperor, and Ma- 
gistrates, and endeavored to array the church against 
the civil government, on questions of public right.* Of 
these it is written 2 Pet. ii. 9, 10 — "The Lord knoweth 
how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to re- 
serve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be pun- 
ished ; but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the 
lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presump- 
tuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak 
evil of dignities." Such conduct not only tends to ex- 
cite the civil power against the church, but tends to 
subvert all government, and infuses a spirit of insubor- 
dination uncontrollable by either human or divine law. 

The effect on the moral influence of Abolitionists. It 
conveys an unscriptural idea of the importance of civil 
rights, contrasted with the interests of the soul. 

The providential government of God and his word, 
teach that man's outward condition is of little impor- 
tance compared with what involves his eternal condi- 
tion. "One thing is needful," is the great lesson of God's 
word and providence. 

The conduct of Abolitionists teaches a different les- 
son. They concentrate their energies upon another 
object. They agitate the Church, and the State, 
threatening each with dissolution if this object be not 
attained. They desecrate the Sabbath by collecting 
crowds in political assemblies on that holy day. They 
advise the slave to violate the eighth commandment, and 
to disobey all the commands which God has addressed 
to him as a slave. 

*See Macknight's illustration of 1 3th Romans. 



39 

And what is this object, dearer than the integrity of 
the government, the peace of the church, the sanctity 
of the Sabbath, and the commands of God] A politi- 
cal right. What a lesson for the slave, and for the 
world ! Let this be compared with what God says, 
on this same subject. 1 Cor. vii. 20, 21 — "Let every 
man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 
Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it : but if 
thou mayest be made free use, it rather." 

Here I cannot but advert to the claims of superior 
benevolence towards the slave, so confidently made for 
Abolitionism. We must judge of the benevolence of a 
plan, not alone from the favor proffered, but also by the 
proposed means of securing it. There is no benevo- 
lence in proffering wealth to a poor neighbor, if it must 
be obtained by fraud or theft. Satan's proposal to grati- 
fy the fond wishes of Eve, might have been deemed 
polite and kind, had it not involved the violation of a 
divine command. Is that benevolence to the .slave, 
which encourages and aids him to secure his freedom, 
by violating the command, "to serve his master with 
all fidelity!" Or is it benevolent to infuse into his mind 
such notions, as will make his servitude a galling yoke, 
and disqualifying him for obeying the mandate "to 
count his own master worthy of all honor." 

The effect on the moral 'power of the Bible. Abolition- 
ism assumes to demonstrate by a process of inductive 
reasoning, that the relation of master and slave is a 
gross sin — a violation of the laws of our being. From 
this, it follows, by necessary consequence; that no book 
authorizing this relation, can come, from God. The 
Christian Abolitionist denies that this relation is au- 
thorized by the Bible ; and adopts a system of exegeti- 
cal rules, that make the Scriptures teach according to 



40 

his theory. With him, "forever," when applied to 
servitude, means "to the year of Jubilee," Abraham's 
"servants, bought with his money," are religious con- 
verts ; and eved and doulos, instead of meaning slave, 
mean in fact, only hired servant. The effect of such a 
mode of interpreting the Scriptures, is obvious. Men 
learn to believe, that the Bible is an unintelligible book. 
It ceases to speak to the heart and conscience, with 
divine authority. The writing upon the wall, may be 
from God, but the impression is, according to their con- 
fidence in the interpreter. But there is another class, 
uninfluenced by a reverence for the Bible, who will 
welcome a pretext for evading its authority. These 
will try it by the strict laws of interpretation, and con- 
vict it of teaching this forbidden doctrine ; and con- 
demn it, and be freed from its authority. Unless I have 
been misinformed, these results have already been wit- 
nessed in not a few instances. But where this result 
has not been produced, even members and officers of 
the church frequently say, "if I believed that the Bible 
authorizes slavery, I would reject it." This is the true 
issue in this controversy. Whether God, alone, shall 
decide what is sin ; whether the Scriptures sustained 
alone, by the name and authority of God, are, and 
ought to be, the only rule of faith and practice ; or 
whether, by inductive reasonings, from what may be 
termed first principles, we also may decide what is sin, 
and from appeals to human feelings and sympathies, 
and public sentiment, may obtain another rule of faith 
and practice 1 Viewing the doctrines of the Bible, 
and its claims to human credence, as I do, I cannot 
avoid the conviction that the influence of modern Abo- 
litionism, is not only injurious to the moral power of 
the Scriptures, but is also calculated to produce and 



41 

nourish the infidelity " of political principle, " the in- 
fidelity of France — which exhibited to the world the 
remarkable spectacle of a nation declaring war against 
the Bible, and proclaiming its author an enemy to the 
State. 

The effect upon specific precepts of the Bible. Aboli- 
tionism annuls many precepts of the New Testament, 
and substitutes its own in their stead. 
This — says, 1 Cor. vii. 21 — " Art thou called, being a 
servant, care not for it. But if thou mayest be made 
free, use it rather." 
That — teaches the slave to care greatly for it; to care 
for it more than obedience to God, and for his own 
soul; and if he be not made free, it bids him by flight, 
to free himself 
This — Eph. vi. 5, teaches, " Servants to be obedient 
unto their masters in singleness of heart, as unto 
Christ. " 
That — abhors the idea of comparing the obedience due 
to the master, with what we owe to Christ ; and 
teaches that masters are not to be obeyed at all. 
This — 1 Tim. vi. 1, teaches, "Servants to count their 

own masters worthy of all honor. " 
That— not only despises masters, but also teaches the 

slaves to despise them. 
This — Tit. ii. 10, teaches servants not to purloin, but 

to shew all good fidelity. 
That — teaches them utter faithlessness, even to flight ; 
aids them to flee, and bids them to steal, if necessa- 
ry, to assist in their escape. 
This — 1 Tim. vi. 2 and Tit. ii. 9, commands all minis- 
ters of the gospel to teach, and exhort servants to 
perform these duties. 

That — forbids ministers so to teach, and condemns 
6 



42 

those who do it as hirelings, unfaithful, time-servers, 
and traitors to truth and righteousness. 
This — says 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4, "If any man teach other- 
wise, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about 
questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh en- 
vy, strife, railing, evil surmisings. ." 
That — utterly denies this, and claims such as wise and 

faithful ministers of the true gospel. 
This — enjoins all these duties upon the slave, that he 
may "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, and 
that the name of God may not be blasphemed." 
That — says, that to require such duties from the slave, 
is a sin ; that it is dishonoring God and the Gospel ; 
and that his duty is to break his yoke, and escape 
from all obedience. 

It is a remarkable circumstance, that among good 
men, whose motto is, " The Bible — the only rule of 
faith and practice," there should be such a palpable 
mutilation of the Scriptures. 

If we can erase these texts, we can erase the whole; 
and if we can substitute these commands, we can make 
a Bible. What does the Pope claim more than this? 

Such is the influence which a false principle, under 
the guise of benevolence and piety, exerts upon the 
belief and practice of good men : and such is the con- 
trast between the Bible and Abolitionism. 

Abolitionism would exclude from the church, all who 
have not received its impress. It demands the keys, 
" that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the 
mark, or the name of the beast or the number of his 
name," Rev. xiii. 17.* 

* In the "World's Convention," to which reference has been made, it was 
moved by an American Delegate, "that Foreign Christians should have no fel- 
lowship with Ministers from the United States, except those who at home were 
outspoken Abolitionjsts." Of course the Resolution passed. 



43 

It assumes the power of absolving citizens from the 
oath of allegiance. 

It abrogates divine commandments. Though it does 
not excommunicate by "Bull" it calls upon the civi- 
lized world to treat us as an excommunicated nation, 
till we receive its mark. 

In its periodicals, it publishes an "Index Expurgato- 
rius, " not of books, but of men — of ministers and 
statesmen, whom its friends are warned to avoid. 

Though it does not claim the power of burning its 
heretics in a fire made of faggots, yet, it would draw 
around them "the indignation of the world" "a wall 
of exterminating fire, to melt their hard hearts." 

If this spirit had the power of the sword, in what 
would it differ from "the man of sin," of the thirteenth 
and fourteenth centuries'? Yet, it demands to be 
received into the State, as being the very "genius of 
liberty ;" and into the church, as the very essence of 
benevolence; dear to God, and consecrated to his cause. 
So the Grecian horse stood before the gates of Troy, 
a consecrated offering to a Trojan idol. Trojan hands 
drew it into the city. It was received with songs, and 
the sound of trumpets, and great rejoicing. But whilst 
the citizens slept, the enemies concealed in its bosom, 
crept forth, and Troy was destroyed. Satan, who is 
more cunning than Ulysses, is the true author of this 
mode of deluding and destroying men. "Decipimur 
specie recti," applies not to writers of poetry alone. — 
All men are easily "deceived by the semblance of right." 
The acquisition of knowledge tempted Eve to eat the 
forbidden fruit. It was by "professing themselves to 
be wise," that the ancients "became fools, and changed 
the glory of God, into an image made like man, and 
beasts, and creeping things." The Pharisee "made 



44 

void the law," by saying it is " Corban. " And under 
the pretext of promoting purity and truth, and godli- 
ness, the "Man of Sin" has made void both Law and 
Gospel. Satan well understands how to give to his 
devices the semblance of goodness : and to connect 
with them a class of means, fatal to all the interests of 
the community, by which his device is adopted. We 
do not believe that Abolitionists design to injure the 
Church and State. Neither did the Cyprians and 
Augustines, and Chrysostoms, of the early church de- 
sign injury. But they effected it, and to such a degree, 
that compared with what they did, all the oppression 
and persecutions of her enemies, were nothing. They 
nourished the man of sin ; they introduced him into the 
church : they were his sponsors, and on their responsi- 
bility, he was numbered with the disciples of Christ. 

Shall we not learn wisdom from the past, and try 
the spirit, whether "it be of God," ere we receive it 
into the church, or into our hearts. "To the law and 
to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this 
word, it is because there is no light in them. " 

It may be enquired — "Where is the remedy for the 
evils of slavery as it exists in our country; if the prin- 
ciples of Abolitionism be rejected ? " There are, also, 
evils connected with our other domestic and social 
relations. And for all these, the gospel is the sufficient 
and only remedy. Because it has not yet made the 
relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, 
what they should be — shall we abandon the gospel, as 
inefficacious or insufficient, and adopt remedies of our 
own devi sings'? Or shall we abandon it, because it 
appears to be so slow in accomplishing the desired 
result? When Saul had waited seven days at Gilgal, 
that Samuel might come, and offer the prescribed sacri- 



45 

fice, because he tarried, Saul assumed to himself the 
office of priest, and offered the sacrifice,. His pretext 
was, that Samuel delayed his coming. The Prophet 
said, "thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the 
commandment of the Lord thy God : thy kingdom 
shall not continue." — 1 Sam. xiii. 8, 14. Shortly after 
this, Saul again substituted his own device, for a divine 
commandment. Then Samuel said, "Behold, to obey 
is better than sacrifice, and hearken, than the fat 
of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and 
stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry ; because thou 
hast rejected the Lord, the Lord has rejected thee from 
being King." — 1 Sam. xv. 22, 23. And from that time 
the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil 
spirit entered into him. We need patience; and are 
commanded to exercise it in laboring, as well as in 
suffering. "Behold the husbandman waiteth for the 
precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for 
it, until he received the early and the latter rain. Be 
ye also patient." 

In the Olympic race — the successful competitor 
must have complied with all the prescribed rules of 
the race. It is thus with those, who contend for the 
heavenly crown. "Though a man may strive, yet is 
he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." He must 
neither attempt to shorten the distance, nor change the 
course. 

But if we compare the effects of the two plans, on 
both master and slave, it seems hardly possible that any 
true friend to either, could desire a change in the gos- 
pel plan, even though it were practicable and lawful. 

Abolitionism proposes, as its consummation, " the 
immediate and entire emancipation of the slave, be- 
cause his master has no right to hold him." Admit 



46 

this to have been effected through the present efforts of 
Abolitionists. Will not the master believe that his pro- 
perty has been forcibly wrested from him? and will 
he not indulge unkind feelings toward the freed slave, 
and the Abolitionists ? The slave obtains his freedom, 
as one who has been long and most unrighteously 
oppressed. Will it not seem to him a virtue to hate 
his former oppressors? Can we expect any harmony 
or interchange of kindly feeling between them? 

But what will be the effect upon the 'political con- 
dition of the slave? With the ignorance and inexpe- 
rience of the bondman — he becomes a free citizen, in 
a community of his fellows. What will be the pros- 
pects of such a community? 

When the Jews were emancipated from Egyptian 
bondage, their number was about equal to the number 
of slaves now in the United States. Yet, with a pros- 
pect of national prosperity and glory, such as had never 
been conceived by any other people ; and with influen- 
ces to humble them, and secure reverence for their 
rider, and obedience to law — such as were never 
exerted upon another community ; it was found im- 
possible to constitute them an independent nation. — 
The entire generation that had arrived to years of 
maturity, at the exodus, from Egypt, perished in the 
wilderness. The next generation required the discip- 
line of the forty years in the wilderness, ere they were 
prepared to become a nation. To them Moses said, 
'And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord 
thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to 
humble thee, and prove thee, to know what was in 
thine heart, whether thou wonkiest keep his command- 
ments or no." — Deut. viii. 2. 

What then, must be the prospects of the slaves, if 



emancipated, on the plan of Abolitionism ') How 
different from these effects are those of the Gospel ! 
It takes both master and slave under its supervision, 
and with its own divine authority prescribes to each his 
relative duty. It constitutes the master the guardian 
of his slaves, responsible to his "master in heaven," not 
only for their kind treatment, but, for their moral and 
religious culture. It thus provides for the instruction 
of every slave, by a teacher, who has an interest in his 
Avelfare, such as no other person can have. What sys- 
tem of common schools can be compared with this. 

The discharge of his duties will necessarily increase 
the master's interest in his slave. He learns to regard 
him as a fellow-being — a man like himself, formed for 
the glory of God, and redeemed by the blood of the 
Saviour ; and he seeks his welfare, not only because it 
is required, but from the fraternal feelings of humanity. 

The gospel has its influence also, on the slave. It ad- 
dresses him as a man, and sustains the responsibility of 
man ; — teaching him that his servitude is lawful, it re- 
moves that sullen dissatisfaction which Abolitionism 
creates, and which so eminently unfits him for receiving 
instruction. Now he appreciates and assists his mas- 
ter's efforts for his culture. He learns to serve, not with 
eye-service, but as fearing God ; and in his care for his 
master's interest, and his anxiety, that "he may adorn 
the doctrines of God his Saviour, he learns the duties 
and cultivates the habits of a freeman. If it now seem 
best that he should be made free, the way is prepared. 
He can now be emancipated, without injury to himself, 
without the regrets of his master, and without detri- 
ment to the State. 

Will it be said that "this result can never be accom- 
plished." Then the question recurs:— Shall we adopt 



48 

a plan of on? own devising? Because, from unbelief, 
we doubt the efficacy of the divine plan ; or from an 
overweaning estimate of our own wisdom, we feel able 
to devise one more efficacious, shall we take credit to 
ourselves for rejecting God\s and substituting our own? 
But the gospel proposes, and enjoins no plan that 
may not — shall not be realized, if the church discharge 
her duty. Let the zeal, manifested in efforts to coun- 
teract the divine plan, be exerted for its execution ; let 
the church in the meek spirit of her Redeemer, with 
entire confidence in the perfection of his law, and an 
humble reliance on his aid, teach the master and slave 
according to his word, and who can doubt the result? 
"If they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my 
people to hear my words, then they should have turned 
them from their evil way, and from the evil of their 
doings." If we would do good to others, we must 
stand in the counsels of the Lord. If we would save 
our own souls, his word must be "hid in our hearts." 
"Thus saith the Lord the heaven is my throne, and 
the earth is my footstool : where is the house that ye 
build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? — 
But to this man will I look, even <to him that is poor, 
and of a contrite spirit, and tremblelh at my wordy 



54 W 







% 


























"of 





' " ° - 

















WERT 
BOOKBINDING 



» "^ 



